devel April 2007

devel@lists.centos.org

39 participants
33 discussions

Jigdoes of CentOS 4.4 and 5.0 i386/x86_64 CD/DVD available.
by Maciej Żenczykowski 19 Apr '07

19 Apr '07

Reposting original message from CentOS mailing list for further discussion with developers and QA deep (per instructions). --- I've gone through the trouble (after some 10 rounds I finally have something I'm happy with) and generated jigdo/template files for CentOS 5.0 iso's (CD/DVD i386/x86_64) (and CentOS 4.4 while I was at it: CD/DVD/ServerCD SRPMS/i386/x86_64). (and I started on this before the thread about creating the DVD's from the CD's started ;-) ) They are available at: http://tcs.uj.edu.pl/~buildcentos/centos-jigdo/ (I skipped the LiveCD since jigdo offers no size improvement here -- already for the ServerCD the template file is 125 MBs because of the different .img files inside the iso) These jigdo/template files should allow you to generate any of the listed cd/dvd isos from the publically available http://mirror.centos.org mirror site (which is DNS-aliased to something close to you). Jigdo will also allow using a local source of files (ie. an existing CD, etc...) You will need to install jigdo-file and jigdo-lite. It is available: - in package jigdo from dag's repository (rpmforge) for CentOS 4 (and others) - in package jigdo-file for debian/ubuntu (just apt-get it) - from the source website (both sources, and windows binaries, and statically linked linux binaries) http://atterer.net/jigdo/ Once installed usage is (...should be...) trivial: jigdo-lite --noask http://tcs.uj.edu.pl/~buildcentos/centos-jigdo/%.jigdo which will generate the requested (replace the % with what you want, see the http://tcs.uj.edu.pl/~buildcentos/centos-jigdo/ listing) iso file in the directory in which you run it. [If you have a local source of files you can skip the --noask and provide it when asked] Next step: get this included on the centos mirrors ;-) [hint hint] Afterwards: it would be nice to drop the iso files from the mirrors in their entirety and generate them on-the-fly using the JTE extensions package. Should be significant space-savings. [requires perl cgi in the hosting webserver, but should be very safe since it's all read-only access] Even later: it would be awesome if we could generate the jigdo/template during mkisofs (requires using a patched mkisofs). This would skip the slightly painful jigdo generation step (painful - because I have to download a local mirror of both the files and the CD/DVD images, much less painful to do it directly on the centos source/build system/mirrors) Both later steps are 95% there (the JTE jigit website/extensions/mkisofs patches/etc) and mostly require putting together rpms for EL4/5. (I'm going to be trying to put together a mkisofs-jte rpm which doesn't override the normal mkisofs rpm, but instead provides two files - /usr/bin/mkisofs-jte and it's manpage) This should also allow more customized images (like the rolled up updates) without increasing mirror space usage. Jigdo (combined with hardlinking identical files, which I believe is already done) should enable drastic reductions in centos HDD footprint. Comments? Cheers, Maciej Zenczykowski _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

4 12

Re: [CentOS-devel] Question re RPM Package Naming
by Les Bell 19 Apr '07

19 Apr '07

John Summerfield <debian(a)herakles.homelinux.org> wrote: >> G'day Les, good to see you again, virtually speaking! << 'morning, John - you're up early! >> Note that the file name need not fully reflect the package name; the package could be el5.centos.i386.rpm and the file .el5.lesbell.i386.rpm << As I understand it, the package name will generally be a substring of the file name, and I'd certainly favour consistency here. E.g. filename pdftk-1.12-1.el5.centos.i386.rpm, once installed, will show up as pdftk-1.12-1.el5.centos. The way I've done this is simply to set the Release string in the spec file to be "1.el5.centos", but obviously I could automate this by defining some stuff in .rpmmacros or in /etc/rpm or somewhere. Anyway, at this point, I'm able to rebuild RPM's for my own setup (as I used to do for RH9 long after RH had given up on it). I just figured I'd get on top of the process of releasing stuff back to the community. In any case, it'll have to take a back seat for a couple of weeks, as I have a literature review due in next week as part of my progress towards my Masters thesis (would you believe, I've gone back to school?!), Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909

1 0

Question re RPM Package Naming
by Les Bell 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

When building RPM's for CentOS, should I include ".el5.centos" in the Release field? I recently built (you might remember) pdftk-1.12-1.i386.rpm and have made it available for testing and inclusion in the Centos repos. However, when trying to find RPM's, I find it helpful if the package filename includes the distro and distro version number. I can easily produce "pdftk-1.12-1.el5.centos.i386.rpm" and other related files, but is this kosher? Or is the ".el5.centos" designation reserved for official releases, post-QA? Just trying to do the right thing here. . . Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909

3 2

4.4 -> 5.0 upgrade (considerations)
by Rodrigo Barbosa 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm working on a formula to enable a clean upgrade from 4.4 to 5.0. Unfortunately, not only we have a big glibc upgrade on our way, we also have some nasty package fragmentation. The best exemple is xorg-x11-libs, which was separated in several (10+, perhaps) packages. So far, I think the best plan is to create meta packages to solve this dependency hell. Lets call it meta-4.4to5.0-upgrade.noarch.rpm. This package should provide and requires the needed components. Unfortunatelly, this will probably change from system to system, which can become very nasty. In that case, we have two ways to procede: 1) A script that will create a package specific for that given system 2) Several meta packages I'm kind of leaning toward the second option, with a super meta package that will require them all (in case someone want to make things simples at the cost of installing extra packages). Comments ? Suggestions ? - -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGJGaSpdyWzQ5b5ckRAhw2AJ0QBzzC6QfrW4Lj4FfpB+dO4Qx1CwCgroxT ZPrC/PFmX/71wicSAaywJWY= =v59U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

7 11

Re: [CentOS-devel] Question re RPM Package Naming
by Les Bell 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)darkover.org> wrote: >> Just to make sure no confusion arrises here: I'm not a member of the CentOS team, so even tho I'm fairly certain my position regaring the .centos part is correct, don't take it as canon. << Don't worry, Rodrigo - if we kids are off-base, one of the grown-ups will come along and set us straight. ;) Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] Question re RPM Package Naming
by Les Bell 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)darkover.org> wrote: >> > Oh, I couldn't do that - modesty forbids, etc. Anyone who needs to know who > to blame will know to use "rpm -qi" to track the packager down. In any > case, that leaves an ambiguity; is the package for the OUP's el5, or CentOS > el5? Since it is not an official package of either of them, it really makes no difference, does it ? << Ah - I guess that answers my question: I thought that the .centos part just indicated that the RPM was built on/for Centos. But if it really means it's an official package, that's an entirely different proposition. >> That is the cannonically correct way to do official packages. But if you are submiting something that will end up in EXTRAS, you don't need to worry about that, since it will most likely require other modifications. << Yes - that was the idea of submitting it via this list. In that case, I can just sit back and relax, since it's somebody else's problem. Thanks! Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909

2 2

Re: [CentOS-devel] Question re RPM Package Naming
by Les Bell 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)darkover.org> wrote: >> My suggestion would be .el5.lesbell.XXX.rpm, at it will both identify the distro and the source of the package. << Oh, I couldn't do that - modesty forbids, etc. Anyone who needs to know who to blame will know to use "rpm -qi" to track the packager down. In any case, that leaves an ambiguity; is the package for the OUP's el5, or CentOS el5? I suspect there's also a complication with whose GPG key is used to sign the distributed package, too. For my own part, I'd prefer the ".el5.centos.xxx.rpm" designation, but I'd like to know the canonically correct way to do this. Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Re: Jigdoes of CentOS 4.4 and 5.0 i386/x86_64 CD/DVD available.
by Lance Davis 17 Apr '07

17 Apr '07

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Maciej Zenczykowski wrote: >> also need to keep in mind that if its going to hit .centos.org machines, >> its going to come atleast a few days later than the .torrent - since we >> tend to get hit real hard by people using yum and doing net installs as >> well. > > So ideally the best solution here is to have some sort of DNS resolving in > place so that mirror.centos.org always resolves to your closest in-sync > mirror -- I was under the impression that we already have this for yum??? But --- does jigdo have any kind of indirection in place , eg to get a list of mirrors and use them ?? Or could yum be used as a wrapper around jigdo maybe to pull stuff down using fastestmirror or maybe even dags stuff ?? Otherwise it gets messy because mirrors have different file structures, so just using CNAME's wont work. The trouble I see is that if a user doesnt have a local mirror or local copy of a set if isos then downloading the packages individually from a mirror may be less efficient than downloading an iso / set of isos, and certainly without mirror redirect and fastestmirror it is a non starter ... The fedora guys have beern working on stuff that we also ought to look at , and we should look at metalinks while we are at it. Regards Lance -- uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.

3 5

Fwd: [CentOS] RHWAS rebuild efforts
by Leonardo Pinheiro 17 Apr '07

17 Apr '07

On 3/10/07, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists(a)karan.org> wrote: > > > Can you give us more details on what packages need JDK, and which JDK? > > I'd like to understand what is going on, which packages are not ported > > to Centosplus yet and why. > > There are bits of jboss and mod_jk stuff form rhwas4as that need the > java stuff. > > > Do we have to build (compile) JDK? > > if you want to, but considering its unlikely we will get the sources for > 1.5.x jdk, I'd say we might need the route of nosrc.rpm instead :) > > > Can't we use JPackage.org's and give users instructions on how to > > install and enable their repository? > > Maybe thats possible ( I know at least the mysql-jdbc package has its > origins in jpp ) , would you like to take this effort on ? > > Jim and HughesJr have been looking at the rhwas stuff, if you are > interested in taking this up, maybe we can start a wiki page with details. > > - KB Talking about JPackage, besides the JDK, there are *lots* of other packages there, some of them only in SRPM by now, some of them not usable yet (1.7bis beta). For sure they have been making a good work, and of course it is desirable that JPackage 1.7b (or whatever version) goes stable so that we have something that is very usable (enterprise/stable). If RHWAS needs packages that are provided by JPackage (is this the case?), and JPackage provides a great diversity of packages for the Java world, I'd like to rise a discussion on this: - how to provide a healthy/enterprise/[reasonably community supported] Java environment on CentOS - if packaging by ourselves is interesting - if we could get more engaged on JPackage (or make our own JPackage modified version) - if it is interesting to make a QA team for the Java Ecosystem on CentOS, because of its importance What do you thing? What is your opinion? Maybe Jim, HughesJr and Karanbir can also speak on this :-) Thanks Leonardo

1 1

Converting CD <=> DVD
by Wojciech Pilorz 16 Apr '07

16 Apr '07

Hi, I am enclosing scripts and config files to generate exact copy of CentOS 5.0 i386 installation DVD image, that is CentOS-5.0-i386-bin-DVD.iso if you have CD images for i386. linux system is required to run them. If there is interest I can post the same for x86_64. Please follow README files for instructions. All the scripts are GPL. SHA1 for attached files: 439f7b0bd50722388a2836eedafeb1c227f97385 *00_README.txt 520e805b4c9386d1e08b3741337ee83afe60547d *DVDgen_bin_i386.tar.bz2 I am wondering if you would consider the scripts appropriate for inclusion on CentOS servers, so that people who need both DVD and CD could download jost one of them (after simplifications made possible by having all needed files on http / ftp / rsync servers ) [ The scripts would be simplified, if needed files, which are now obtained with curl, could be included. They are too large for inclusion in mail, so used the curl approach. ] I am also considering writing a script which would generate DVD iso image directly from CD iso files, without requiring individual files (which are now accessed via loopback mouting or copying from mounted media). Such script could be then run on any machine with perl installed, even most non-linux one. I can see from mail posting that a lot of people use non-linux machines for downloading, so maybe this would be valuable. Best regards, Wojtek Pilorz

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel April 2007